Please note: we have been online over ten years, and we want The Trek BBS to continue as a free site. But if you block our ads we are at risk.Please consider unblocking ads for this site - every ad you view counts and helps us pay for the bandwidth that you are using. Thank you for your understanding.

Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.

I know enough folks who wasted money on a useless degree to end up in a trade that pays the rent and then some. And who are very happy. AND realized just how much time and money they wasted following a course expected of them by society of the "right" way of growing up and pursuing a career.

There are better ways, and much less costly ways as well.

And my experience is that everybody who didn't get a significant degree cannot even get a foot in the door for mundane jobs now. You've read of the McDonald's that requires a 4-yr degree for food prep?

I've got 20+ years of pro writing credits, some of that as a fulltime thing and a lot as freelance plus regular crappy day job, and can't even get an interview for a day-in/day-out writing job (which is why I still have the insanely crappy day job) ... I take that back, twice since I've been in the northwest I HAVE gotten writing-related interviews ... both of which ended abruptly when I said, "I have 6 units of college." Didn't matter that in one case we'd gone through all the prelims, including hashing out wages and schedules.

My wife has several years of accounting and bookkeeping work and literally PERFECT job reviews for two decades ... same story, she cannot get a job in that field at all ... need as minimum a 4 yr degree.

I'm not advocating getting more college because it is going to improve you, or because its the time of your life or any of that. But for whatever reason (maybe the employers want workers they know are having to pay off $50,000 or more in college loans, figuring they won't bug out or cause trouble? Haven't really seen a solid professional reason for disqualifying more than competent folk for the lack of higher ed), that is now a much bigger issue than I recall it ever being in the past.

Oh yeah, reason I went into this thread: there is a light tech article on this movie up at icgmagazine.com ... it discusses IMAX and the 3D aspect ... interestingly, and contrary to statements made in the trekmovie forum, shooting flat with conversion in mind did NOT slow down production, because after hearing about all the do-this/don't-do-that, Abrams stopped listening and just shot it as he would anything else.

Only Star Trek fans out of any genre fandom would look at a huge epic film coming up and complain. How much we take the franchise for granted these days, even after it almost disappeared for a third time not long ago. You can pick it apart, but it mainly matters if it's good entertainment, which ultimately ST in all it's incarnations is.

As for the negative reviews. They may well not have liked it, which is fine, but it smacks of the old popularity backlash...sometimes something is just too popular for the media to take, then they set upon it like wolves. It would have been almost unprecedented for the two JJ Trek films to have 95% approval at RT. There are already many glowing reviews.

Comparing successful business entrepreneurs starting on their own to an employee working one's self up the ranks of an established organization doesn't really make sense anyways.

It's basic math. Minority versus majority. The majority needs proper education. Only a handful become successful even though they don't have any degrees. And ANY of those will tell you how important a degree is, and they will also demand it from their employees.

It's like a million struggling actors in hollywood vs. a handful of Oscar winners.

Millions of athletes, but only a few record setting Olympians.

__________________
A movie aiming low should not be praised for hitting that target.

If you consider "Star Trek Into Darkness" to be part 13 of a larger franchise, you may walk away frustrated and tied in knots if the reactions I saw after a screening were any indication. Conversely, if this is part 2 of a new franchise in your mind, chances are you're going to have a great time with the continuation of what JJ Abrams and his collaborators began in 2009's "Star Trek." I find myself somewhere in the middle of those two camps, ultimately coming down on the side of the film as a pretty relentless piece of summer entertainment, anchored by what I consider one of the most exciting movie star performances in recent memory.

I feel badly for the hardcore "Star Trek" fans who don't like this new version, because I know what it's been like for them in the years where there were no new "Trek" movies in the works, and I know what it's been like for them loving something that was always considered somewhat left of center, always in danger of going away forever. While "Trek" has managed to survive for nearly 50 years at this point, there have definitely been lean times where Paramount didn't see much upside in continuing to throw money at something that just couldn't cross over to be a full-fledged mainstream sensation.

They've had their moments, of course. "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan" was a minor miracle, a huge rebound from the debacle that was "Star Trek: The Motion Picture." Lean and fun and wildly affectionate, "WOK" became the thing that they chased from that point on. It was interesting seeing how widely loved the series was when "The Voyage Home" was released, just as I was impressed seeing how completely everyone turned on "The Final Frontier" just a few years later. Even the biggest of the "Next Generation" movies still felt like they were nerd events, not mainstream events, and when Paramount first started talking about a reboot, it seemed like a business decision with very little creative upside available.

I would argue that the 2009 film proved that supposition wrong, and in fairly spectacular fashion. What Abrams did, and what he does in everything he makes to some degree, is he reclaimed the basic archetypical dynamic that defines "Star Trek," and he used it in a way that resonated loudly with audiences.

This part is great:

"Star Trek Into Darkness" begins with Kirk chafing at the role that he's expected to play, and Chris Pine once again owns the character of Kirk completely from the opening scene to the finish. It is downright miraculous that he ended up with the role, because what he does with it is not something I can imagine any of the other likely candidates for the part even trying to do. Pine is an original, and he plays this combination of arrogance and anger and comedy in such a way that it's all sort of jumbled up together. He's not doing Shatner at all. He's playing Kirk.

A college degree may make things easier, but many management jobs can be had if you're willing to put in the time.

I spent twelve years at a super-regional bank nine as a grunt, three as a manager overseeing a nightly $500 million dollar deadline. I eventually had to leave because anxiety and high-blood pressure not related to the job got to me.

My wife worked six years in collections, moved onto tele-communications as a grunt. Spent less than a year and is now in a leadership position and eyeing bigger things.

My wife has several years of accounting and bookkeeping work and literally PERFECT job reviews for two decades ... same story, she cannot get a job in that field at all ... need as minimum a 4 yr degree.

It's not so much that they really, really insist upon it, but, in a down economy, they use it to reduce the flood of resumes coming in. That's what they're doing where I'm at.

It's not so much that they really, really insist upon it, but, in a down economy, they use it to reduce the flood of resumes coming in. That's what they're doing where I'm at.

Yeah, and it's ultimately stupid.

When I was working for a lot of government contractors, it astonished me how many really motivated, smart and useful kids came out of the military into tech fields with strong skills and found employment in the DC area really difficult. The sole reason was that most government contracts for computer-oriented jobs - and this was way back in the 80s - stipulated as boilerplate language in RFPs that all contract staff employed on the project have at least four year degrees. If you couldn't or didn't choose to do college but enlisted instead and got lots of practical training in real world situations (and that included a lot of classroom instruction for computer programmers, operators and so forth) you were screwed in the local market.

BillJ wrote:

Yep. Either him or the guy working on the car. They're both making good money.

That's true. What I envy is how much he loves the business and the work. At his age I was making great money and was bored.

I understand what you're saying but IMO it's a solid ideal to reach for. I really can't find fault with people who want to inculcate it into their lives.

The problem is that people are incorporating something twisted and strange and not at all what you think it is. I've seen one other poster play the IDIC card, but basically when it pertains to when people disagree with what he likes, and then he turns around and speaks of what he dislikes. That really makes no sense to me. It would make more sense to me that instead of worshiping a TV show's dogma and using it as any kind of basis for philosophy that one should first start with the basics like not being a hypocrite. Any one who throws out any claims of IDIC is like the one who throws the first stone...

And I called you ignorant because your post reeked of it.

Perhaps you already had the scent on your nose. There was nothing ignorant about it.

When I was working for a lot of government contractors, it astonished me how many really motivated, smart and useful kids came out of the military into tech fields with strong skills and found employment in the DC area really difficult. The sole reason was that most government contracts for computer-oriented jobs - and this was way back in the 80s - stipulated that all contract staff employed on the project have at least four year degrees. If you couldn't or didn't choose to do college but enlisted instead and got lots of practical training in real world situations (and that included a lot of classroom instruction for computer programmers, operators and so forth) you were screwed in the local market.

That's because one party is in bed with the Education industry. So they help their voters/donors, by making policy which forces people to seek their services.

Guys, I have posted a load of pictures and reviews of the UK Premiere of Star Trek Into Darkness, if your worried about spoilers then no worries, the reviews have been posted below the photos so you can avoid them.